Commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the alliance at a NATO event, in Washington
By Tuvan Gumrukcu
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey has blocked cooperation between NATO and Israel since October because of the war in Gaza and said the alliance should not engage with Israel as a partner until there is an end to the conflict, sources familiar with the process said.
Israel carries the status of NATO partner and has fostered close relations with the military alliance and some of its members, notably its biggest ally the United States.
Prior to Israel's offensive in Gaza - prompted by Palestinian militant group Hamas' Oct. 7 rampage - NATO member Turkey had been working to mend its long-strained ties with Israel.
Since then, Ankara has been fiercely critical of Israel's operation in Gaza, which it says amounts to a genocide, and has halted all bilateral trade. It has also slammed many Western allies for their support of Israel.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said Turkey had vetoed all NATO engagement with Israel since October, including joint meetings and exercises, viewing Israel's "massacre" of Palestinians in Gaza as a violation of NATO's founding principles.
A U.N. inquiry in June found that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes in the early stages of the Gaza war. It said Israel's actions constituted crimes against humanity because of the immense civilian losses. Israel rejects this and says its operation in Gaza, which has killed nearly 40,000 people, aims to eradicate Hamas.
The sources said Turkey would maintain this block and not allow Israel to continue or advance its interaction with NATO until there was an end to the conflict, as it believes Israel's actions in Gaza violate international law and universal human rights.
After a NATO summit in Washington in July, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said it was not possible for NATO to continue its partnership with the Israeli administration.
Earlier this week, Israel's foreign minister urged the alliance to expel Turkey after Erdogan appeared to threaten to enter Israel, as it had Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh in the past.
(Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by Daren Butler and Christina Fincher)
Turkey's rogue behavior under Erdogan: NATO must act before it's too late
TURKEY’S PRESIDENT Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks at a press briefing during NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington, last month. He has written the textbook on how to mutate into an authoritarian regime, the writer says.
It has become increasingly evident that Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a rogue nation within NATO, a Trojan Horse for the Iran-embracing Axis of Resistance in the Western alliance. The Turkish president has flirted with Russia, sabotaged NATO expansion, aggressed neighbors, and destroyed his country’s developing democracy.
After Erdogan’s threat, this week, to invade Israel, crossing a major line, NATO must read him the riot act.
The threat of entering Israel in defense of Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, delivered at a meeting of his AK Party, should not be misread as bluster. It is a calculated escalation from the playbook of hubristic tyrants: As a sense of impunity sets in, they gamble, often recklessly – as with Adolf Hitler’s calamitous 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.
An actual Turkish invasion right now is extremely unlikely, but that should not blind the world to the reality that, were a regional to erupt with Israel and its allies vs Iran and its proxies around the Middle East, Turkey would align itself with the enemies of the West.
That Erdogan even openly flirts with such a posture is the result of acquiescence to his broad palate of misdeeds over his 21 years of misrule of an important country with 85 million inhabitants. A quick summation may shock anyone who has not been paying close attention.
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq April 22, 2024. (credit: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS/File PhotoTurkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq April 22, 2024. (credit: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo)
IT IS important to note that when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in 1949, it was assumed that member states would be democratic and peaceful. The principles underlying the project emphasized democratic values, collective security, the rule of law, individual liberties, and peaceful resolution of disputes.
Turkey was nobody’s model for much, but it was moving in the direction of such principles until 2003, when Erdogan won enough parliamentary seats to make him prime minister. He then proceeded to write the textbook on how to mutate into an authoritarian regime whose only democratic element is elections – which can be manipulated.
Thousands of journalists, judges, and generals are in jail, as well as high-profile politicians from opposition parties. Many academics and civil society activists have been detained or dismissed. Divisive rhetoric has been deployed, with skill, to marginalize Kurds, Armenians, and other minorities. Erdogan has made Islam far more prominent in public life, alienating secularists and minorities and badly rattling the economy.
Erdogan's history of oppression
In 2017, Erdogan pushed through a controversial referendum that turbo-charged the presidency, shoehorned him into it, and abolished the office of prime minister. This allowed him enormous influence over the judiciary. From there, it was a short path to anti-terrorism laws silencing dissent and criminalizing protests; to election irregularities and voter suppression; and to interference with opposition campaigns. As part of that strategy, he has ensured that the media is mostly either state-controlled or owned by cronies.
This level of oppression has both created the need for international adventurism (to distract the downtrodden public) and enabled it (since criticism is muted). So Turkey has adopted a more aggressive foreign policy, which has led to tensions and conflicts with neighbors.
Turkey has conducted multiple military operations in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish groups (backed by the West) which it considers “terrorist organizations.” In Iraq, Turkish military forces have frequently crossed into northern Iraq to target Kurdish bases.
Turkey’s assertive claims and drilling in disputed areas of the Eastern Mediterranean have escalated tensions with Greece and Cyprus (the Mediterranean island whose north is occupied by Turkey – with the rest of it a European Union member).
Turkey also provided military support to the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Libya – one of the rival authorities in that chaotic country. And it offered arms supplies and political cover to the authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan, in its aggression toward the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh; last fall, Baku attacked the long-autonomous enclave, sparking the panicked flight of all the 120,000 ethnic Armenians who lived there.
Interestingly, in his statement on Sunday, Erdogan hinted at more direct involvement in those conflicts than had been believed, saying: “We must be very strong so that Israel can’t do these ridiculous things to Palestine. Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we might do similarly to them.”
Turkey has also spread disinformation to influence public opinion in neighboring countries, ignored international court rulings, and supported Islamist groups in the region, creating friction with countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. It is seen by the moderate elements in the region as a destabilizing force.
REGARDING NATO, Turkey has taken several actions that have strained and undermined the relationship. These include acquisition of the Russian S-400 air defense system, which led to US sanctions and to its expulsion, at great cost, from the F-35 stealth fighter program (as the S-400 is incompatible with NATO’s integrated defense systems and could be used to gather intelligence on NATO aircraft). Turkey has occasionally blocked NATO defense plans, particularly those concerning the Baltic states and Poland, and tried to block the recent accession to NATO of Sweden and Finland.
Its unilateral military actions in Syria have complicated NATO’s efforts in the region, particularly in the fight against ISIS. Frequent violations of Greek airspace and territorial waters by Turkish military aircraft and naval vessels have heightened tensions with that fellow NATO member. It has also upset NATO member France, with disputes in the Mediterranean near Libya.
Turkey has pursued energy projects that bypass traditional NATO allies, such as the TurkStream pipeline with Russia. And, in what may be the most potent issue for Europeans, it has used as leverage the threat of allowing large numbers of Mideast refugees to cross into Europe, fueling far-Right politics across the continent.
So, what to do?
When a NATO member exhibits behavior that undermines the alliance’s principles and unity, NATO has several options beyond the obvious route of quiet diplomacy to get the member in line.
It could implement economic sanctions against key individuals and entities within the rogue regime – such as asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on financial transactions. It can suspend military aid, funding, and training programs provided by NATO to the member state. It can withhold, or limit, participation in joint exercises and operations, reducing the rogue state’s influence. It can temporarily suspend the member state from participating in key NATO committees and decision-making bodies.
Expulsion would be an extreme scenario for which there are no clear procedures – though a unanimous decision among members should be enough.
That is not a great outcome, because the West prefers Turkey on-side for its strategic location, military capabilities, and perhaps especially for the use of the Incirlik Air Base. But there may be some leverage in the very threat, as Turkey benefits from NATO membership too, through security guarantees, diplomatic and military clout, and economic ties.
The current situation cannot be tolerated.
To understand the implications, consider that NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense says an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all. That would mean that if, in an edge-scenario, Turkey were at war with Israel, then Israel would in some way be at war with NATO.
It’s safe to say that NATO does not want any part in such a scenario.
To cut this off, it must take action now.
The writer is the former chief editor of The Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, a columnist for The Forward and the author of two books about Israel. Follow his newsletter “Ask Questions Later” at danperry.substack.comda.
No comments:
Post a Comment